I don't even know how to respond to this. First, no, it's not true that many legal experts thought he committed a crime. A prosecutor in a particular case is obviously self-interested, in that his goal is to get a conviction. All independent experts who were asked about the case (like Alan Dershowitz) said that there was no probable cause to even bring charges.

Second, in nearly all states, the provocation has to be physical. Even in places where it isn't, yelling at someone to not hit someone doesn't qualify.

Third, no, outside of Ohio, self defense is NOT an affirmative defense, but a defense that the state must disprove.

I'm not disagreeing that an innocent person who uses deadly force will get put through a lot of emotional and financial hell. That doesn't mean, however, that merely intervening in a fight means that you lose the right to use deadly force.

look, I am sure you and I are on the same page of what should be -- but I think you are making substantive errors on what the law is.

You stated all legal experts thought Zimmerman was not guilty. guilty of what? Murder? Maybe. manslaughter? Oh a lot of legal experts thought he was. As far as Alan Dershowitz, I like him, you like him, but he is very strong conservative and hardly representative. And he is more o a celebrity commentator than a legal scholar. To say no legal scholar supported prosecution of Zimmermann is not factual.
What the consensus is that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter or assault. Those are still charges, and would have attached a lot of jeopardy and would have put Zimmerman at much higher risk of being convicted.

The point being: if an overzealous prosecutor charges the carrier with murder instead of manslaughter, does not mean that manslaughter is not going to ruin your life. The fact that Zimmerman was overcharged, and that the prosecution was unable to refocus to the option of manslaughter conviction instead, does not mean in other cases a manslaughter charge from the beginning would not have very possibly worked

AS far as provocation, it certainly does NOT have to be physical to harm the self defense/justified use of lethal force by the concealed carrier. Anything you say prior (including way prior), during or after the innocent that may impugn your motive can be used by the prosecution -- or in a civil case -- to show you contributed, escalated, did not match force with proportional force. Anything showing your intent and state of mind in a negative light is evidence.

And self defense or justifiable out on the street as in this case is in fact an affirmative defense. Probative burdens vary by state, but it is nationally an affirmative defense. Some states have low burdons for establishing that affirmative defense. In Maryland for example there is a (low)burden of "production" in invoking the affirmative defense. So there, the defense in a criminal case must "produce the issue", introduce some proof and argument it is justifiable, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove it (that is still an affirmative defense). but in civil cases in Maryland the defendant (the concealed carrier who intervened) has the burden and must prove that the act was justified.

Getting involved in ANY third party incidents, including domestic assaults, is INFINITELY more dangerous for those who possess a firearm.

Well trained permit holders should thoroughly understand this fact.

Agree. there are a number of comments here that show a poor understanding of the actual law, and also an poor understanding of how this could unfold.

It is because you have a firearm that you should keep your distance.

Lots of people here probably have no idea that the women in abusive relationships are often in a "Stockholm-Syndrome" like state, and may very well bear the "white knight' animus for killing her boyfriend/partner no matter what he was doing. She could easily claim they were just wrestling, or she could say she smacked the dead guy and he smacked her back, whatever.

On top of that, the prospect of a nice fat civil case with $100k, $500K or way more as a payout, she may have a an even better motive to say, with professional coaxing from an ambulance chaser, that the white knight was a vigilante and at fault.

jurors may well believe the person exercising lethal force will have needed to have seen the whole event to have a reasonable fear she was going to be killed or that the boyfriend was not responding himself to her force.

Since murder by hands, fists, feet etc. is a category within the FBI's murder report for every year, wouldn't the shooter be justified fearing for his life, assuming that the victim was threatening the shooter?

__________________NRA Life MemberFFL 03MD Designated CollectorMonumental Pistol and Rifle Member

Just last night I was walking into the package goods store of a local watering hole/liquor store, and there was an altercation beginning out front between a man and a woman. She kept screaming, "give me my KEYS!" I didn't know the people, the context or anything. Do you think I was going to step in?

HELL NO!

I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole. If fists started flying I'd probably call 911, but otherwise? That's a big, cool, tall glass of nope. Nope nope nope.

Years ago a guy I know came across a couple in an altercation in a convenience store parking lot, and he decided to intervene. The next thing he knew he was picking himself up off the pavement with a brand new broken and crooked nose.

It's just not worth it - let the people who get paid to deal with that kind of crap handle it.

look, I am sure you and I are on the same page of what should be -- but I think you are making substantive errors on what the law is.

You stated all legal experts thought Zimmerman was not guilty. guilty of what? Murder? Maybe. manslaughter? Oh a lot of legal experts thought he was. As far as Alan Dershowitz, I like him, you like him, but he is very strong conservative and hardly representative. And he is more o a celebrity commentator than a legal scholar. To say no legal scholar supported prosecution of Zimmermann is not factual.
What the consensus is that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter or assault. Those are still charges, and would have attached a lot of jeopardy and would have put Zimmerman at much higher risk of being convicted.

The point being: if an overzealous prosecutor charges the carrier with murder instead of manslaughter, does not mean that manslaughter is not going to ruin your life. The fact that Zimmerman was overcharged, and that the prosecution was unable to refocus to the option of manslaughter conviction instead, does not mean in other cases a manslaughter charge from the beginning would not have very possibly worked

AS far as provocation, it certainly does NOT have to be physical to harm the self defense/justified use of lethal force by the concealed carrier. Anything you say prior (including way prior), during or after the innocent that may impugn your motive can be used by the prosecution -- or in a civil case -- to show you contributed, escalated, did not match force with proportional force. Anything showing your intent and state of mind in a negative light is evidence.

And self defense or justifiable out on the street as in this case is in fact an affirmative defense. Probative burdens vary by state, but it is nationally an affirmative defense. Some states have low burdons for establishing that affirmative defense. In Maryland for example there is a (low)burden of "production" in invoking the affirmative defense. So there, the defense in a criminal case must "produce the issue", introduce some proof and argument it is justifiable, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove it (that is still an affirmative defense). but in civil cases in Maryland the defendant (the concealed carrier who intervened) has the burden and must prove that the act was justified.

This is really good advice!

__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.